Tag: Tulip Siddiq

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department has taken to amend UK marriage certificates to include mothers’ names.

James Brokenshire

There is agreement that the names of both parents should be included in the marriage entry. The Home Office has, therefore, been working with all interested parties to consider the most efficient and effective way to achieve this. Doing so is likely to require additional funding and changes to legislation, IT systems and administrative processes. A timetable will be confirmed for changes as soon as there is an opportunity to legislate on this matter.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many disabled students allowance awards were made by the Student Loans Company to students (a) studying at higher education institutions, (b) with a term-time residence and (c) with a vacation time residence in Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in the most recent academic year for which figures are available.

Joseph Johnson

Statistics showing the number of Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) payments to English students are published annually by the Student Loans Company (SLC) in the Statistical First Release ‘Student Support for Higher Education in England’.

http://www.slc.co.uk/official-statistics/financial-support-awarded/england-higher-education.aspx

Data provided by the SLC indicates that there were: (a) 120 DSA recipients studying at an institution within the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency and (c) 168 DSA recipients who registered their home address as being in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in the academic year 2014/15.

Information on DSA recipients with a term-time address in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency is not available.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on how many occasions in each year since 2009-10 he has been asked to confirm a local planning authority’s decision to revoke planning permission under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and on how many such occasions he (a) confirmed and (b) overturned that decision.

Brandon Lewis

Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 means that if it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to do so, it may make an order revoking any planning permission to develop land. When an order is opposed by the owner and occupier of the land or by other persons who in the authority’s opinion will be affected, the order has to be submitted to the Secretary of State and shall not take effect unless it is confirmed by him.

For each year since 2009/10:

Year	Number submitted for confirmation	Confirmed	Overturned (declined to confirm)
2009/10	1	1	None
2010/11	1	None	None
2011/12	None	None	None
2012/13	1	None	None (withdrawn by authority)
2013/14	None	None	None
2014/15	None	None	None
2015/16	None	None	None

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much public funding has been allocated in each year since 2003-04 to improve post-transplant outcomes for people with blood cancer or blood disorders after they receive a successful stem cell donation.

Jane Ellison

NHS England commissions stem cell transplant activity for adults and children from 46 providers and have provided the following information on funding.

Total funding for stem cell transplantation was £163 million in 2013/14 and £170 million in 2014/15. Services are commissioned within this budget based on need rather than as individual services. Stem cell transplantation is subject to local pricing and so it is not possible to provide information about funding by provider as this is commercially sensitive.

NHS England is responsible for commissioning specialised care involving adult bone marrow transplantation that includes care up to 100 days after transplant. The costs of care up to 100 days post-transplant are included within the overall budget for stem cell transplantation. NHS England does not hold data on the funding of care beyond this 100 day period.

The Department does not hold information on funding provided for these services before the creation of NHS England in 2013.

The Joint Accreditation Committee for the International Society for Cellular Therapy and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE) is an independent organisation and the Department does not hold data related to JACIE compliance.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-02-29.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many import extradition requests from Category 2 territories were passed to the International Criminality Unit of the Home Office in each year since 2009-10; how many such requests were authorised by her to be sent to Category 2 territories for hearing in their courts; and in how many of those cases the foreign court ordered extradition.

James Brokenshire

“Category 2 territories” refers to countries designated as extradition partners under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Not all the information requested is held centrally. The tables below set out the information which is centrally held by the Home Office.

Figures for the numbers of people extradited or requests refused in a particular year may include those for whom a request was made in a previous year.

Import extradition requests involving Category 2 territories

Year	Requests submitted to the Home Office for Category 2 territories	Requests sent to Category 2 territories	Number of people extradited to the UK
2009	35	35	26
2010	33	33	19
2011	49	49	22
2012	32	32	25
2013	23	23	26
2014	37	37	11
2015	45	45	26

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions there have been for breach of forced marriage protection orders in each month since section 120 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force.

Caroline Dinenage

This information is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428937/outcomes-by-offence-tables.xlsx.

The next available annual statistics will be published in May 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-03-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answers of 21 July 2015 to Question 7583 and 9 September 2014 to Question 207819, how many (a) military, (b) civilian and (c) liaison personnel are now stationed at each of those sites in Saudi Arabia; how many of each of those personnel are in locations where Saudi Arabia plans and executes military operations in Yemen; and how many (i) military, (ii) civilian and (iii) liaison personnel are in the command and control centre for Saudi airstrikes in Yemen.

Penny Mordaunt

Further to my answer of 21 July 2015 the UK currently has:

11 personnel providing mentoring and advice to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, as part of the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

19 military and 37 civilian personnel working on the Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project to acquire and support, modern communications capabilities for the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

72 military and 42 civilian personnel working on the Ministry of Defence Saudi Armed Forces Projects, supporting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the defence of Saudi Arabia through the supply of modern military aircraft, naval vessels, weapons and associated support services to the Saudi Armed Forces.

We have a small number of liaison personnel who work at the Saudi MOD and Operational Centres to provide insight into Saudi operations. They remain under UK command and control. There are no other UK military or civilian personnel working at these headquarters.

British personnel in Saudi Arabia are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen or selecting targets and are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-04-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the statutory duties imposed on the independent regulator will ensure that fees for (a) statutory functions and (b) non-statutory functions of the Land Registry will (i) not increase above operating costs and (ii) not increase above inflation in the event that the Land Registry is privatised under the Government’s alternative model of privatisation with economic regulation.

Anna Soubry

Under a contract-based approach, fees would still be prescribed in fee orders made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and set before Parliament. Under a regulator-based approach, fees would be controlled by the regulator.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-04-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the ban on bearer shares which came into force on 26 May 2015.

Anna Soubry

The government introduced a ban on the issue of new bearer shares on 26 May 2015 through the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The legislation provided a transition period to allow existing bearer shareholders to convert their shares into other types of shareholding or to realise their value. The transition period ended on 25 February 2016. Companies notify Companies House of the removal of bearer shares when they file their annual return (which will change to the confirmation statement from 30 June 2016).

Since 26 May 2015 Companies House has worked closely with the approximately 1,300 companies that had bearer shares as well as their directors and professional representatives. Over 1,233 of those companies have confirmed to Companies House that they have no longer have bearer shares.

Companies House is monitoring each filing of these companies’ annual return to confirm that the bearer shares have been converted. This exercise will end in February 2017 once the annual filing cycle concludes following the end of the transition period.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-05-04.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which countries the UK has negotiated agreements on the exchange of tax information which (a) are in compliance with the OECD’s standard for such agreements and (b) provide for the automatic exchange of tax information since the OECD’s standard was released in July 2014.

Mr David Gauke

The UK has exchange of tax information agreements with 142 different jurisdictions, through Double Taxation Agreements and Tax Information Exchange Agreements, and also as party to the OECD/Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the ‘Multilateral Convention’).

A list of the international agreements the UK is party to can be found on Gov.uk under ‘Tax Treaties’, and details of which jurisdictions have entered the Multilateral Convention into force alongside the UK can be found on the OECD website.

Of the 142 international tax agreements the UK is party to, only the following 12 do not meet the international standard for exchange of information on request:

1. Egypt

2. Fiji

3. Gambia

4. Israel

5. Jamaica

6. Kenya

7. Namibia

8. Oman

9. Papua new Guinea

10. Sri Lanka

11. Swaziland

12. Zimbabwe

    That international standard does not apply to automatic exchange. The standard for automatic exchange the question refers to (as published by the OECD in July 2014) is the Common Reporting Standard, the globally acceptable standard on automatic exchange of information with respect of financial accounts information.

    The means of ensuring this standard was through a common Competent Authority Agreement, which supplements the international tax agreement allowing for exchange of tax information, rather than being an international tax agreement itself. There is no standard for automatic exchange in international tax agreements; just whether the agreement allows for it or not.

    It is the UK policy to interpret international tax agreements to allow automatic exchange even where not expressly stated, with the exception of cases where the exchange of information provision clearly uses restrictive wording that would preclude such an exchange.